One non urban temperature recording station ( remote as you wish) that shows either steady or decreasing mean temperature per unit of time is sufficient to sink the good ship global warming.

While I do not want to be accused of being in the alarmist camp, the above statement certainly mischaracterizes the debate. Current global warming theory does not require that every square inch of the earth be involved in the warming. Climate scientists of all stripes recognize that a single temperature station can neither verify nor disprove anthropogenic global warming. Your argument is properly categorized as “cherry-picking” and should be ridiculed by both sides.

The newly revised satellite data shows with certainty that 1998 was the peak warm year and the planet has undergone relative global cooling in the last 7 years. Hardly what the alarmists were predicting 7 years ago.

The planet warmed from 1900 till 1940 then cooled till 1970 then warmed till 1998 and is now cooling again. Can anyone claim with any degree of certainty when the 1998 peak will be surpassed or if it will be surpassed at all in the next hundred years? Nobody knows with any certainty since we can’t know future solar irradiance at todays level of scientific understanding.

]]>By: Louis Hissinkhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/08/09/satellite-measurements/#comment-35512
Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:29:47 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=298#comment-35512This reminds me of the argument over how many angels could be fitted on a pin head.

One non urban temperature recording station ( remote as you wish) that shows either steady or decreasing mean temperature per unit of time is sufficient to sink the good ship global warming.

May I suggest Mars might, with its atmosphere of 95% CO2, with negligible “greenhouse effect” might add a new perspective?

Debate over decimals of temperature when the historica data themeselves were never measured to such a precision makes the whole debate much like a Shakespearian Tragedy.

]]>By: Michael Sewardhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/08/09/satellite-measurements/#comment-35511
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:53:12 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=298#comment-35511In 1998 Fred Singer reassured the House Small Business Committee that “The climate is not warming…”
On his website, Singer claims that “…since 1940, weather satellites, tree ring data, and corrected thermometer readings all agree that climate has not warmed–even though CO2 levels rose.” http://www.sepp.org/faq.html
In April 2005, Fred Singer accepted his “Flat Earth Society” award with this comment:

“What matters are facts based on actual observations. And as long as weather satellites show that the atmosphere is not warming, I cannot put much faith into theoretical computer models that claim to represent the atmosphere but contradict what the atmosphere tells us.”

Now comes research that uncovers errors in the satellite and weather balloon data, which explain the discrepancy between reports showing that the atmosphere is not warming, even while temperatures at the Earth’s surface are rising at an accelerating rate.

A report by scientists at Yale University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that the effect of the sun’s heat on weather balloons largely accounts for a data discrepancy that global warming deniers have long hung their hat on… http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/p08s01-coop.html

Three papers published in Science Express “strongly suggests that there is no longer any fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical atmosphere” according to Benjamin Santer, lead author of the paper and a scientist in LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison.http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/yu-eit080805.php

Now, why would Singer put his faith in weather satellites, when the satellite data have long been known to be subject to potential errors in data analysis? Because that’s his job, as a vocal global warming denier, media spokesperson and the founder of an anti-global warming think tank.

Facts based on observations are consistent with the theory of global warming. Singer’s penchant for categorical denials of any evidence of global warming is at odds with observed facts. Singer’s comments illustrate the bankruptcy of credibility that the skeptics have created for themselves by promoting uncertainties in the science as arguments in their favor.

I don’t know if “ground warms faster than ice,” but I think it’s irrelevant.

I think what you’re trying to say is that the ice has a higher albedo than the ground (or water) beneath it, which means it reflects more radiation. Therefore, as ice coverage is lost, the Earth’s overall reflective albedo decreases and results in increased warmth (provided all other conditions stay roughly the same, of course).